Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

remove_circle_outline

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (1)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = CBCT analysis of implant placement accuracy in esthetic area

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
8 pages, 1919 KiB  
Article
Evaluation of Deviations between Computer-Planned Implant Position and In Vivo Placement through 3D-Printed Guide: A CBCT Scan Analysis on Implant Inserted in Esthetic Area
by Mario Caggiano, Alessandra Amato, Alfonso Acerra, Francesco D’Ambrosio and Stefano Martina
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(11), 5461; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12115461 - 27 May 2022
Cited by 15 | Viewed by 2936
Abstract
Background: Implant rehabilitation in cases of monoedentulism in the esthetic area is a challenge for the clinician. The aim of our study was to test the diagnostic–therapeutic accuracy of computer-guided implant placement in the esthetic area. Methods: Postimplant surgery cone beam computed tomography [...] Read more.
Background: Implant rehabilitation in cases of monoedentulism in the esthetic area is a challenge for the clinician. The aim of our study was to test the diagnostic–therapeutic accuracy of computer-guided implant placement in the esthetic area. Methods: Postimplant surgery cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were retrospectively analyzed to assess the accuracy of computer-guided implant placement compared to the preoperative computer-digital planned implant position. We selectively enrolled CBCT scans of patients who underwent immediate or delayed implant placement of a single maxillary incisor, treated with computer-guided implant surgery through a tooth-supported digitally designed 3D printed guide. Our analysis consisted of three digital measurements: the mean deviation of the implant axis, and the mean mesiodistal implant deviation measured both at the apex and at the head of the implant. Results: A total of 95 implants were placed in 95 patients (60 Males, 35 Females; age from 27 to 45-year-old). Congruence analysis showed a mean deviation of implant axis of 1.04° ± 0.56° in sagittal projection, a mean mesiodistal implant deviation between adjacent teeth of 0.14 mm ± 0.07 mm at implant head level and 0.8 mm ± 0.3 mm at the apex in axial projection. Conclusions: computer-guided implant placement through a tooth-supported guide was extremely accurate in the esthetic area because the deviations between the real implant position and the preoperative planning was not clinically relevant. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Dental Materials and Appliances)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop